Poll: Clinton's Ohio Lead
Hillary Clinton now leads Barack Obama in Ohio 49-45, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac (which will be posted here shortly).
That's a significant narrowing of her lead, and just barely outside the 3.5 percent margin of error. In a Quinnipiac poll released February 14, Clinton led 55-34 percent, and in a February 25 poll she led 51-40.
This poll includes Democrats and independents.
Among self-identified Democrats, Clinton leads with about the same margin--49 to 44 percent. Among independents who say they are likely to vote in the Democratic primary, Obama has a slight lead within the margin of error--50 to 48 percent.
Gender in Ohio displays the greatest divide. Women back Clinton 55-39, while men favor Obama by the same margin, 55-39.
UPDATE: Other polls show her lead holding or exanding slightly.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.5
- 41.7
- Obama +4.8
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 32.7
- +23.0
- McCain
- 52.4
- 34.7
- +17.7
OH, we need you on board to TURN THE PAGE! 11 States and counting!
Jews Cold on Obama
Jewish voters in New York State — including Democrats — could support Republican John McCain in the November election if Barack Obama wins his party’s nomination, according to Fredric U. Dicker’s “Inside Albany” column in the New York Post.
Dov Hikind, a Democrat who backed Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, is an assemblyman whose Brooklyn district includes the largest concentration of Hasidic Jews in the U.S.
He said many of his constituents oppose Obama for his “half-hearted” support of Israel and his membership in the church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who has repeatedly praised anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
“There are a lot of Jews who are concerned about these issues, and they go way beyond Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, people I describe as conservative Reagan/Giuliani Democrats,” said Hikind, who has not yet endorsed a presidential candidate.
Jewish concerns about Obama have been widely reported among top New York Democrats, according to Dicker.
“There is anxiety, there is concern, on the part of a lot of important Jewish Democrats in New York,” one prominent Democratic activist told the Post.
But Hikind said last week’s controversy over Obama’s visit to Kenya, where he was photographed in Somali garb, would have no impact on Jewish voters.
This article is written as if the Democrats would not carry New York in the event that Obama were elected. Absurd.
Actually, 49-45 is within the 3.5% margin of error. A 3.5% margin of error means Clinton's percentage could be as low as 45.5%, and Obama's could be as high as 48.5%.
www.huffingtonpost.com
Posted March 2, 2008 | 12:45 AM (EST)
Now it's official: page one of the New York Times reported on Saturday that the Jews have a problem with Obama.
Buzz up!on Yahoo!The Times story, by Neela Banerjee (is that a Jewish name?), did not exactly say there was a "problem." It said there was a "challenge" for Obama: "navigating" the "treacherous paths" that lead to "winning the trust" of Jewish voters. That task, the Times reported, is "all the more difficult" because of the "tenuous relations" between blacks and Jews.
Not until paragraph nineteen, deep inside the paper on page A12, did readers learn that the Jewish vote is "hardly monolithic."
And nowhere in the piece did readers learn that Hillary Clinton was thought to have the Jewish vote sewed up before the primary season began -- partly because Obama was an unknown quantity to the official Jewish organizations that define whether politicians are sufficiently pro-Israel.
Nevertheless in February Obama surprised many pundits by winning a significant proportion of the vote in what some called "the Jewish primary" -- the day New York, California, Connecticut and Massachusetts all voted (others called it "Super Tuesday"). Obama split the Jewish vote in California with Clinton, even though she won the state, 55-45. Obama won the Jewish vote in Connecticut, 61 to 38. He won the Jewish vote in Massachusetts, 52-48, even though he lost the state 56-41.
In New York, Clinton took the Jewish vote 2-1. But that's her home state.
According to the Jewish weekly The Forward, on Super Tuesday "Jewish voters were not more likely to back Clinton than Democratic voters were as a whole, except in New York."
Obama's position on Israel -- the litmus test for the conservative Jewish establishment -- is the mainstream Democratic Party position. His website says that "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel... will always be my starting point" in dealing with the Middle East. Obama supported Israel's disastrous war in Lebanon in 2006. Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida says "Obama has been an ironclad supporter of the US-Israel relationship."
So what exactly is the problem? According to the Times, "some critics" have "expressed concerns" that Obama's repeated statements of support for Israel "are not heartfelt."
Number one among those critics, according to the Times, is somebody named Ed Lasky, who writes for a website called AmericanThinker.com.
The Times failed to note that Obama's supporters include Martin Peretz, longtime editor-in-chief of The New Republic, whose obsession with Israel is legendary. He recently published a remarkable piece in that magazine headlined "Can Friends of Israel--and Jews--Trust Obama? In a word, Yes."
Of course there are lots of other reasons why Jews support Obama. Jews have been the religious group most opposed to the war in Iraq. Jews are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats. The American Jewish Committee poll last November asked American Jews to pick their most important campaign issue. 23% named the economy and jobs, followed by health care (19%), the war in Iraq (16%), and then terrorism and national security (14%).
At the bottom of the list: support for Israel, at 6%.
That wasn't in the New York Times, either.
March 03, 2008 4:08 PM
replyflag thisreport as spamrenatam (not verified) says:
Hillary: Obama Not Muslim...Obama Muslim smear
Hillary: Obama Not Muslim "As Far As I Know"
Huffington Post | March 3, 2008 10:03 AM
Buzz up!on Yahoo!Via Ben Smith, Hillary gives a less than adamant answer to a question about Obama's religion on 60 Minutes. Hillary claims, "I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." It's an issue where even an accidental slip this can do damage.
How dare the Conservative Canadian Government interfere with the American Elections by leaking memos on the eve of a big Primary -- when Hillary Clinton (and Bill?) are on the ropes regarding NAFTA? Americans, REMEMBER THIS. Now the Canadian Government APOLOGIZES on the eve of the Primary after Hillary has spent two days leveraging this WRONG story. Americans, REMEMBER THIS PLEASE! This has Bill's fingerprints all over it. Disgusting.